Having become a lot more knowledgeable with aviation lately due to getting my pilots lic., you all have to remember that aircraft have some of the strictest regulations of anything in the world. If China built this and only wanted to fly in China then sure, they won't have the same safety standards. However if they want to fly to North America this plane will be gone over by the FAA and Transport Canada thoroughly before they are allowed to fly in our skies.

I wouldn't feel any worse flying in one of these than many of the 40 year old aircraft that Horizon, Alaska, United etc. are still flying around.


p.s, whatever happened to hands and feet for flying. Looks like everything other than Boeing is going to this joystick control system.

I prefer flying with a stick over a yoke for the most part.

^ With today's protection systems, there's no more cable controlling, all FBW. Check out airbus control laws, that shit is just :fulloffuck:.

China has been building planes for ages, heck they even stole plans to copy a 707 back in the 60s. With today's technology, I can't see why they can't build an airplane; they already sent people in the space :ilied: .

Airplane QC takes at least 10 years to determine. The 777 had a 99% dispatch rate until one went down at LHR due to a RR fuel-oil filter. MD-11 are notorious to flip over due to their under-designed rudder during landing. MD80/90 and their uncontained engine failure that kills the person beside you? 737 rudder servo issues that took 7 years before an Airworthiness Directive was handed out to Boeing by the FAA. Heck, the 787 and the Li-ion batteries that are made in Japan have QC problems, luckily some engineer in Seattle had the brains to put a box around the battery to prevent flames from reaching the avionics bay.

^ JFK is the worst when it comes to ICAO official ATC terminology. ICAO develops idiot proof, but JFK ATC has to divert from it creating a clusterfuck. Most pilots from non English speaking country have trouble there, even american ones do.

That's not reassuring at all...

The problem is that the engineering mastery of China is still not proven. They have been copying other designs and technology for decades with little understanding, subtle nuances they missed out while copy pasting their designs could lead to a disaster.


Not only that, but parts quality control would be a disaster, unless they import everything from all over the world.

^ Japan did the same thing with cars. Did they have engineering mastery from the beginning or was it after years of copying that they gain the technical know how?

Quality control is not stuck at one point and can't be improved. Compare a Merc from the 90s and 00s, Merc had some amazing quality control in the 90s. :troll: QC in China has improved immensely if you take a look at the amount of products that are made in China. If their QC wasn't decent enough, your house would've been on fire already. :lawl:

The amount you pay is what you get. Cheap shit= shit quality

It will work when the country as a whole wants to improve. Until then corruption is still rampant and all it takes is some money and greed to show the result.

Toppling buildings and trains flying off it tracks anyone?

pew pew pew boeing fighter!

nose of a 787... body of an A320/A319

Japan did copy, but not to the point like China.

The Datsun 240Z was a Jaguar Copy, Lexus LS was a Mercedes S copy, the '73 Celica was a Mustang copy, Mazda RX-7 was a Porsche 924 copy, FJ40 was a Jeep copy, and so on.

But the way Japan copied was they simply stole design cues.

Not like China how they would try to carbon copy BMW(like BYD) or how Geely copying Mercedes...or all the Corolla and CRV knock offs.

Thread title fixed to unfuck Timpo's Engrish.

In related news, it has been announced the tv program Mayday will remain in production for the forseeable future. :troll:

For me, it's not the fact that it's made in china that bothers me. I have said this before - China has some of the brightest engineers, and a huge pool of resources to build amazing things. It's the management that's fucked up, and I wouldn't trust it for things like transportation.

If companies like Boeing or Airbus themselves want to do manufacturing in China, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't trust a grounds up operation until they have had at least a decade or two of relatively problem free operation.

OWNED :ohgodwhy:

Yeah, I was thoroughly impressed after reading into that, the comprehensiveness and level of redundancy is astonishing.

But I'm just speaking about light airplanes with good ol' fashioned cables or push-rods, all that I've ever flown!

Curious, what's your background? Engineer?

With all the cost-cutting *effort* :ifyouknow: that Chinese put into their manufacturing, there is not a chance I'd ever fly a Chinese-made plane no matter how many safety standard they pass.

The Airbus aircraft you speak of being assembled in China are built for the Chinese domestic market. In this case, the assembly of A320 aircraft takes place in China while the design phase is conducted by EADS in Europe.

With regards to the chinese developing their own aircrafts. I wouldn't be too worried about carriers other than chinese ones choosing to outfit their fleets with these. Not only do they have an unproven track record in terms of design and operational reliability, post purchase support for these aircraft with regards to parts and technical expertise is non-existant outside of China (important criteria considered by any large commercial airline before the acquisition of new aircraft)

For those referring to the 787 and its current set-backs, one must also consider that the technology being used is very new and that there is no precedent in terms full-scale composite fuselage designs in commercial applications. Also of importance is the way in which parts are manufactured and assembled for the 787. Instead of the conventional in house manufacturing process, many major components are manufactured around the world culminating with the final assembly in Everett. As with the development of any new technologies, certain kinks and anomalies will need to be ironed out. Necessary bumps in the road so to speak in order to achieve full operational maturity of the aircraft itself and of the assembly line. For example, airlines often report different efficiency ratings regarding fuel consumption for the same model aircraft, the difference being the ones that came off the assembly first usually havent had the luxury of being tuned with the updates made by the accumulation of flying hours that the later models come off the line with.

I personally look forward to my first experience aboard a 787!

In what though? Are you a commercial transport pilot? I haven't had the chance to fly any type of tailwheel plane or anything (like a cub) but I imagine it would be much more fun that a Cessna 152.

I'm curious as to how an Airbus system works because it's offset a bit more like a computer joystick.

I read 744 and 777 manuals for fun when I was young :lawl: understood Boeing, but not Airbus :fullofwin:

What are you talking about? It's held together by temporary fasteners and duct tape. :troll:.



It's amazing to see that the wing still maintains the same shape compared to the 777. Too bad Boeing didn't release the 757 wing load test, it went up to ~200%.

Special derively from homerand China LAAAAA!

Yea, unfortunately china is kind of an inferior brand right now. They may be making great products, but until they produce quality products that they can have pride in, the Chinese products will always have that stigma.

Hell, even my parents even dont fully trust products made in China. It's going to take the government to crack down on corruption to get rid of this stigma.

This, there's been to many horror stories from cost cuttings that have tarnish the reputation of products coming out of china. And people will (rightly or wrongly) always associate them with that.